That's Jenni Russell's message in her column for The Guardian. She accepts that the Conservatives are almost certain to be Britain's next government and she encourages the Left to engage with David Cameron and avoid him (a) failing or/and (b) coming under the influence of the dreadful Tory right:

"The dominance of the progressive wing of the party can't be taken for granted. It is a fragile thing, and if it is to succeed it needs constructive criticism. I asked two insiders how many people in the party were fully behind this new Toryism. "Ten," said one, "but it's an important ten." Another said grimly: "Twenty-two - the shadow cabinet." Standing behind the more socially responsible Conservatives are plenty of gin-drinking, Mail-reading Tories nostalgic for the harshness of Thatcherism. They would cheer, along with the left, if this experiment failed."

A few observations:

The Cameroons tend to be dazzled by wooing from the Left: I do worry that the Cameroons are too flattered by the Guardian and other left-wing organisations that show them interest. It's true that the Conservative project needs to be broadly based but there's too much fascination with unsatisfactory ideas like Red Toryism and nudging. Old fashioned ideas like Margaret Thatcher's housewife economics may not be so sexy but they are the ones that will get our country out of Labour's economic mess.

Will the Left cool on Cameron if he pursues his social agenda? The most genuine (and important) thing about Project Cameron is its interest in social renewal. It will be interesting to see how the Left's view of a Cameron government evolves if it stays true to its poverty-fighting agenda of emphasising marriage, faith-based charities, welfare reform, school choice and harm avoidance approaches to drug addiction.

The Right lacks coherence: Jenni Russell's caricature of the Tory Right is ridiculous but the Right is now very hard to define. There is no great unifying force behind it if it exists at all anymore. There is certainly no accepted definition of Thatcherism. The Tory Right is split on Europe, foreign policy and confused on economics. It has no leader although David Davis, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Fallon, Liam Fox, John Hayes, Edward Leigh, Owen Paterson, John Redwood and John Whittingdale all represent important strands.

The ten who get it: And who are the "ten" who are fully behind the undefined "new Toryism"? I am only sure of six...

David Cameron, of course.

George Osborne, more socially liberal and more hawkish than DC but the tactical brain of the whole project.

Steve Hilton, the strategic brain responsible for the decontamination project, for the emphasis on green issues and social responsibility.

Oliver Letwin, responsible for putting together the overall policy programme of the next government and intellectually its Gandalf.

Michael Gove, hugely trusted by David Cameron and responsible for the education brief that is intended to be the most radical of his government....

There are others, of course, who are hugely influential - Lord Ashcroft, Andy Coulson, Andrew MacKay are stand outs - but the above six would be my candidates for being fully behind the "new Toryism" and who are at the centre of power.

Earlier this week we published the results of our survey of leading 'voices of the parliamentary Right' from outside the frontbench. John Redwood, then Norman Tebbit, then IDS were the voices most recognised by Tory members. We also ran a separate question for the frontbench: "Who is the single most effective voice of 'the Right' on the Conservative frontbench, including the shadow cabinet and the House of Lords?"

Unlike with the question for the non-frontbench we asked people to 'write in' answers. In other words, they didn't have a list to choose from. 94% of the 1,159 people who volunteered an answer identified just three people: Liam Fox, David Davis and William Hague:

The survey shows that 44% of members regard Dr Liam Fox, Shadow Defence Secretary as the most effective voice of the Right on the frontbench. In many ways Dr Fox fits the popular idea of a 'right-winger'. He is strongly pro-American and Eurosceptic. He is pro-marriage and supports a much lower time limit on abortion. He favours lower taxation and advocated much more patient choice when he was the party's health spokesman. Like IDS, however, he is also at the forefront of the party's social justice agenda. The language of 'broken society' agenda was first employed by Dr Fox during his leadership bid. Writing for ConservativeHome in November 2005, Michael Gove drew parallels with the Fox and Cameron agendas. Michael Gove's article makes even more interesting reading in retrospect.

Yesterday evening we noted that 'The Right' was quite an unsatisfactory term but in the April survey of members we asked Tory members to vote for 'the most powerful voice of the Right' (a voice from within Parliament but not serving on the frontbench). We'll be unveiling the results for the frontbench tomorrow. This list of twelve followed a rudimentary shortlisting process on this page. The results represent the views of 1,657 Tory members.

1st: John Redwood MP: 27%

The man who, in 1995, resigned as Welsh Secretary to challenge John Major for the Conservative Party leadership is the most powerful parliamentary voice of 'the Right' according to just over a quarter of Tory members. David Cameron appointed Mr Redwood to run the party's policy group on economic competitiveness and his recommendation to abolish inheritance tax has (largely) been accepted by the party. His scepticism about green taxation and controls on development have also tended to prevail over the more restrictionist approach favoured by John Gummer's policy group. Mr Redwood has put forward his own ideas for a 'practical environmentalism'. Now blogging on a daily basis, ConservativeHome has previously paid tribute to the economic insight of his regular posts.

2nd: Lord (Norman) Tebbit: 25%

The former Tory Party Chairman and scourge of trade union barons was just 2% behind John Redwood as the leading right-of-centre voice. With Britain's first woman Prime Minister unable to make serious, public political interventions anymore Lord Tebbit is seen by many as the pre-eminent keeper of the Thatcherite flame. He was in the newspapers recently calling for the Conservative Party to focus on winning the support of the millions of voters who have stopped participating in the democratic process. Also recently, he attacked Michael Gove's views on Tony Blair and defended Tony Blair's decision to stop the probe into British Aerospace's arm sales to Saudi Arabia.

3rd: Iain Duncan Smith MP: 14%

Another policy group chief, Iain Duncan Smith, is third on the list. The former Conservative leader's social justice work has restored a reputation that took such a battering when he was leader. His Centre for Social Justice is hugely influential on Project Cameron and he now works closely with politicians from other parties. This cross-party character may have produced the large number of comments from readers as to whether IDS could still be thought of as "right-wing". The great strength of IDS' commitment to poverty-fighting is that it is based on an authentically conservative worldview. He sees the free institutions of civil society as central to defeating the poverty that has come to characterise too much of big state Britain.

Each day this week - beginning properly tomorrow - ConservativeHome will be looking at the health of the 'Tory Right'. A question in the April survey of members and readers suggests, however, that the 'Right' may be an unhelpful describer. We asked the question, "How would you describe 'the Right of the Conservative Party'?" We received 883 answers to the question and these ten verbatim responses all appeared within the first 100 replies:

"Very weird/deluded

It is not Right wing, it is Reactionary wing. Same people who resisted Thatcher, now resist new ideas again.

Somewhat out of touch with mainstream politics. Some of them verge on the dangerous.

Out of touch with the general electorate and who are far too vocal.

People who have forgotten that one can only win power by attracting votes from outside the ranks of core supporters.

A little too detached from the need to debate in private and stand together in public.

In danger of perpetuating the view of many of the electorate of wanting to bring back 'Thatcher-style' policies.

Out of touch and a hinderance to winning a general election.

As a group strategically inept.

The "saloon bar" party - appeals to our gut instincts but doesn't realise that the world has changed."

Hmmm. Remember - these are Conservative Party members. The series begins tomorrow.

One question will seek to identify the politician who provides the most powerful right wing voice within the Conservative Party - outside of the frontbench. Right wing is a somewhat unsatisfactory term but we mean it to be a voice associated with the more robust conservative positions on tax, crime, the family and Europe, for example.

I had hoped that David Cameron's claim to be 'the heir to Blair' was just a silly mistake springing from inexperience. It is more worrying to find that Blair worship is now the doctrine of modern compassionate Conservatism. No wonder 40 per cent of electors are unwilling to vote; nor that, when asked which party could best meet any challenge facing Britain, those saying 'neither' regularly exceed those naming either party.

Blair's admirers in the shadow Cabinet might reflect on his record: the bungled war on Iraq, the dispatch of men and women to fight without the equipment they need, the sensational increases in tax without measurable improvement in services, the debauchment of the civil service, the identity card fiasco, the criminal justice fiasco, his surrender of British sovereignty to Brussels, his remorseless attacks on the conventional family, despoliation of education, use of the benefit system to deepen the poverty trap, lesser incentives to work or save, his fuelling of the culture of drugs, alcohol, yobbery and violent crime which has left the Home Secretary fearful of walking the streets of London at night.

It was Blair who introduced uncontrolled, unmeasured immigration of people determined not to integrate, but to establish, first ghettoes, and now demands for separate legal jurisdiction. In biblical terms, Blairism is the poisonous tree which can give forth only poisonous fruit and must be rooted out. In 2005 Blair had the votes of only 21.6 per cent of the electorate. With the poisonous tree of Blairism planted in the shadow Cabinet, where can the other 78.4 per cent turn?"

The strongest segment of what is intended to be a weekly show is the Heffer Confronted feature. Iain Dale, who is a natural TV talent, gets the opportunity to challenge Mr Heffer about his most recent column. In this first edition Simon Heffer makes it clear that most MPs do not impress him. He tells us that...

There are very few MPs with a public service ethic...

Most go into politics because they couldn't get a job elsewhere...

That they couldn't get a job playing a piano in a brothel...

That the Tory Party wouldn't have him as a candidate because it's now full of SDP and neo-socialist views...

That he wouldn't want to be bossed around by a bunch of "thickos"...

Ann Widdecombe describes Heffer's performance as pig-ignorant. And, although within Heffer's bluster there are some good underlying points about the emergence of a detached political class, he is a reminder of what the Conservative Party must never return to. He's angry. He's uncomfortable with modern Britain. He is ungenerous to his opponents - putting the worst possible spin on their views. He has no time for the need for a more balanced Conservative Party that takes social and international justice issues seriously.

David Cameron's modernisation of the Conservative Party has occasionally made ConservativeHome uncomfortable, but if it was ever a choice between Hefferism and Cameronism we'd be 100% with Dave.

Earlier this week I called on Liam Fox and David Davis to help sell David Cameron's modernisation agenda to the right of the party. That is exactly what Dr Fox has done in today's Sunday Telegraph. Dr Fox believes that the new suite of Tory education policies will "place the power with parents", "kick-start social mobility", "make it easier to open new schools
within the state sector so that parents have real options", increase "choice and
diversity" and, in sum, "take a broken society, and fix that."

It's only a short article but a welcome sign that the leading right-wing members of the shadow cabinet are not leaving their leader isolated in keeping the party united.

The quid pro quo of having Fox-Davis-Hague sell the leadership's policies is, of course, that they are treated as full team members and help to set the party's agenda.

I have written for The Telegraph this morning about the aftermath of the grammar schools row. The article's messages will not be new to regular readers of this site but I'd like to quickly emphasise three themes:

David Cameron does have many policies that should energise more traditional Conservative voters.

Top of my own personal list would be his support for marriage and his whole emphasis on social responsibility.

Eurosceptics should look forward to the formation of a new grouping within the European Parliament - outside of the federalist EPP. Yes, the pledge has been disappointingly delayed but alongside opposition to the social charter and the EU Constitution there's enough worth having.

Police reform. Nick Herbert's reform agenda should make a big difference to the nation's ability to fight crime.

Within the home affairs brief there's also the promise to scrap ID cards, build more prisons, institute a dedicated borders security police force and appoint a minister dedicated to homeland security.

I share many activists' opposition to the grammar schools policy but the emphasis on 'grammar streams' in every school, more independence for City Academies and new freedoms for start-up schools are all very welcome.

Much greater independence for NHS professionals.

Some sort of English votes for English laws.

Tax simplification.

An opportunity to repeal the ban on hunting.

And my single favourite policy of all (within a not exhaustive list): the establishment of a website that would take much public sector job advertising away from The Guardian and put it online. Sorry Mr Rusbridger.

I'm sure you can all think of other policies.

These policies do not have to conflict with the greener, gentler message of Project Cameron.

The site's core belief is the And theory of Conservatism. It's perfectly possible to combine a belief in controlled immigration with a generous and passionate commitment to the third world. Support for traditional marriage as a way to stronger communities and respect for gay couples to enjoy fairness in matters of property, inheritance and tax affairs are perfectly compatible. 'And theory Conservatives' can argue for higher defence spending and an end to arms sales to despotic regimes.

But these policies do have to be sold.

David Cameron is doing a fantastic job at selling the kinder, gentler Conservatism to centre ground voters. That's why we did so well in winning LibDem council seats on 3rd May. But he needs help in keeping the base happy. He needs David Davis and Liam Fox to do on the right what William Whitelaw did for Margaret Thatcher on the left. Davis and Fox need to be charged with keeping the base energised and the centre right newspapers on side.

Writing for the House Magazine, Mr Leigh lists the ways in which Mr Cameron has offended traditional Tory sensibilities:

"This is the year that Conservative spokesmen have:

Adopted Aneurin Bevan as a role model (he who vowed to destroy us and described us as 'vermin';

Praised left-wing Polly Toynbee's view of society;

Snubbed the CBI;

Pleaded understanding for marauding hoodies;

Announced that we, not Labour, were the real defenders of an unreformed NHS, the last Soviet-style, centrally-controlled health service in any large country;

Rejected tax cuts, despite the biggest tax hike in peacetime history;

Criticised grammar schools;

Turned down the volume on Euroscepticism to the inaudible."

While praising Mr Cameron's personal qualities the Chairman of the powerful Public Accounts Committee warns that the party is in danger of "taking our core vote for granted and in the process effectively disenfranchising millions of decent people who feel that none of the mainstream parties speak for them." He continues:

"Our Euroscepticism is deliberately confused with crude nationalism, when in fact we want to help the Third World by breaking down trade barriers. And why did the leader's speech at the party conference not mention immigration at all, when in the last few years we have undergone the greatest-ever wave of increasing immigration into our country?"

Part of the reason Edward Leigh is listened to is because of his leadership of the forty-strong Cornerstone group of Tory MPs. The Cornerstone group is not necessarily united in its concerns about Project Cameron, however. One member of the group resigned last week and Cornerstone's co-founder - John Hayes MP - is known to be much more favourable to the party's direction.

Two stories next to each other in today's Telegraph both point to Mr Cameron's exposed right flank.

Story one is the news that UKIP is rebranding as 'The Independence Party' for May's local elections (ConservativeHome predicted this last February). UKIP leader Nigel Farage has told The Telegraph that the party wants to broaden its agenda from EU exit and immigration to also include local independence, lower taxation and deregulation. Mr Farage said that these arguments had been "abandoned by David Cameron." Yesterday Liam Fox warned that "the person who would be happiest if people went out and voted Ukip would be the leader of the Labour Party."

The Telegraph also reports that the forty-strong group of socially-conservative and Eurosceptic Tory MPs - Cornerstone - are planning to publish their own "mini-manifesto". Cornerstone will make twelve submissions of 2,000 words each to the policy review process. The Cornerstone group's Chairman, Edward Leigh, warned Mr Cameron that he could not take the party's 'core supporters' for granted:

"We can see merit in David Cameron's leadership style but it is important to understand and reflect the views of our natural supporters. The core Conservative vote cannot be overlooked in the necessary re-making of the Conservative Party."

The Telegraph notes that Conservative MPs believe that the Tory lead in the opinion polls is too modest given the extent of Labour's troubles. In an article for today's Platform, Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting.com forecasts a hung parliament at the next General Election. Read his article here.

The danger for Mr Cameron is the breadth of offence he is beginning to cause. Tory Eurosceptics are still pained by the delay to leaving the EPP. Small government conservatives regret the caution on tax. Hawks are disappointed that defence is a lower spending priority than the NHS and Atlanticists fear the long-term consequences of the coolness towards the White House. Upsetting the party's social conservatives may be Mr Cameron's biggest risk so far, however. It became clear to ConservativeHome yesterday evening that David Cameron's decision to back the Government and gay rights against the liberty of the churches has upset a large section of his parliamentary party. The Cornerstone Group of 40 MPs are particularly angry. For a while this tightly-knit group within the parliamentary party has been relaxed about Project Cameron. The Tory leader's social conservatism on marriage and his support for Iain Duncan Smith's social justice agenda have kept them quiet. Their enthusiasm evaporated yesterday.

Ann Widdecombe (not a formal member of the group) warned that Britain was "in completely new territory" and that we could be witnessing "the death of religious freedom in Britain." She said that this debate was not about gay rights and compared the situation to abortion. Miss Widdecombe said that gay couples now had a right to adopt and a pregnant woman had a right to an abortion. The unsettling difference was that the woman did not have the right to require a particular doctor to terminate her preganancy but a gay couple had the right to go to any adoption agency to find a child.

"We now undoubtedly face a challenge from the UK Independence Party and to a lesser extent from the British National Party. We therefore need to measure what is the effect of the message we are sending. This will cause concern among a lot of traditional Conservatives up and down the country. This is an incredible assault on freedom of conscience... This is a motif for his leadership. Our core supporters in the country don't like it and they are saying they will vote for UKIP. It's wrong, it's offensive. it's political correctness, and it's social engineering. Tony Blair has given us 20 months to adapt 2,000 years of Christian teaching. It's unacceptable."

Douglas Carswell:

"I will not be taking David Cameron's position on this. I will be supporting the Churches. This isn't about gay rights, it's about whether we should be interfering in the very good job that a part of civil society does on our behalf for children who are hard to place."

Edward Leigh MP of the socially conservative Cornerstone group of Tory MPs has become the first influential voice within the party to raise public concerns at the Cameron strategy. It is rare for anything written in the sleepy House Magazine to attract much attention but Mr Leigh's article for the Party Conference edition of the magazine is picked up by the Telegraph, FT and other newspapers. Mr Leigh warns that the Tory right may not be able to "take any more" of Mr Cameron's modernisation agenda. Mr Leigh writes:

"I wonder if the Tory right - and our core supporters - can take any more. Whether or not people agree with us, freezing us out upsets the balance of politics. Most people end up thinking there is no difference between the main parties. So Bromley should teach us that going too far to attract the floaters is a very high-risk strategy."

After Bromley Stephan Shakespeare of YouGov warned - on this site - that whilst Mr Cameron may be appealing strongly to the voters who float between the main parties but he is not necessarily energising the voters who float between voting and not voting.

The EPP retreat, the caution on tax and public sector reform, the unwillingness to campaign on immigration and the reluctance to be specific about the family are all of concern to the Conservative right. ConservativeHome has long believed that David Cameron is right to broaden the Conservative Party's appeal by building the party's commitment to environmental and social justice issues but that this need not be done at the expense of the party's core identities. The party should be broadening rather than changing. Some members of Team Cameron do believe in ConservativeHome's 'politics of and' but believe that the gentler, greener identities have to be emphasised before the party can return to its core messages. The danger of this approach is that the media will accuse Mr Cameron of flip-flopping when he does start talking about tax and immigration again.

ConservativeHome has worried that Project Cameron is out-of-tune with the world's most successful conservative parties but, in an article for today's Times, Stephen Pollard says that Mr Cameron is very much in line with the world's newest conservative leader - Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden's New Moderates. "The electoral success of the Moderate Party suggests the Tories should continue appealing to the centre ground," is Mr Pollard's clear conclusion. The Daily Mail draws different conclusions from Sweden and hopes that "touchy feely Dave" will offer the kind of tax cuts and welfare reforms that Mr Reinfeldt has promised for Sweden.

If the Militant Tendency was Labour's 1980s Loony Left, the Federation of Conservative Students was the Conservative Party's Loony Right (albeit on a much smaller scale). Radio 4 has just broadcast the second of two 15 minute reflections on the FCS. Presented by The Times' columnist Tim Hames, A Burst of Freedom highlighted some of the Federation's enthusiasms:

The legalisation of heroin and prostitution (ideas not so far removed from today's mainstream);

The likening of Holy Communion to cannabilism;

Unlimited migration into and out of Britain.

The FCS often behaved like an extreme left-wing organisation - seeking ideological purity throughout its ranks. It attempted to disaffiliate colleges and universities that were controlled by 'wets' or other 'unsound' undesirables. It appeared to war with other Tories as much as with the National Union of Students - 'the last closed shop' it hated so much. The wets took their revenge in 1986 when 'a riot' of drunken FCS members at a Loughborough University conference caused what was reported at the time as thousands of pounds of damage (although Tim Hames reported tonight that the damage was actually very slight). The FCS was successfully spun against by one of its 'wet targets' - a young Nick Robinson who went on to report on today's political spinners.

The FCS was finally disbanded by Tory Chairman Norman Tebbit. The last straw was a copy of the FCS magazine which branded former Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan a war criminal for agreeing to the deportation of Cossacks back to Stalin's Soviet Union. Tebbit had to get a court order to stop the magazine's distribution.

Some FCS veterans have now dropped out of politics. Some continue to cause trouble. Brian Monteith was recently forced to resign from the Tory group of MSPs for briefing against David McLetchie. Others like Nick Gibb and John Bercow have moderated over the years and have given up libertarian capitalism to embrace views held by most of the liberal establishment. Many now find themselves inside Conservative Way Forward - the organisation formed during the Major years to keep the party on a sound and Thatcherite path.

Accusing the Conservative Party of clutching favourable opinion polls like a baby grasps for a dummy, Lord Tebbit issues his strongest warning yet to David Cameron in this week's Spectator (not yet online). Describing the Bromley & Chislehurst result as humiliating for the Conservative Party the former Tory Chairman calls for David Cameron to be more worried about the increasing number of stay-at-home voters - the 'none of the aboves'. The rise of 'floating non-voters' was recently analysed by YouGov's Stephan Shakespeare on ConservativeHome.

Noting declining turnout at elections Lord Tebbit writes:

"It has not been the fringe parties, or even to any great extent the Liberal Democrats, who have been piling up the votes. It is ‘None of the Above’ whose supporters are swelling in numbers. They first broke through the 10 million barrier in 1970, and in the last three elections have averaged 16 million. For all sorts of reasons, something like 7 million electors opt out of the political process, but the other 9 million are neither apathetic, nor stupid nor uninterested in what is happening to their country."

Norman Tebbit estimates that both Tories and Labour have a bedrock support of about 8.5 million voters each and they then can win up to 5.5 or so million floating voters. The present Conservative strategy, he believes "is eroding its ultra-loyalist bedrock vote, while doing nothing to entice back its thoughtful erstwhile supporters":

"They want to know if Mr Cameron has bought into the Blairite, ever-expanding, ever more costly, interfering nanny state, or whether he has proposals to strengthen family life, restore discipline in schools, combat crime, deal with the now almost universally recognised dangers of multiculturalism and the unlimited immigration of unassimilable minorities, raise standards in schools and the NHS, and bring back home powers lost to Brussels."

Lord Tebbit goes on to attack the A-list. Cameron's Conservatives give the impression, he writes, "that respectable working- and lower-middle-class supporters in the suburbs, country towns and villages are not quite good enough for the new ‘A’ list, Notting Hill party":

"Bromley suggests that while Conservative voters do believe that the new Conservative party is unlike the one they used to support, Mr Cameron’s target Labour and Liberal voters do not, and the Tories are in danger of missing the electoral opportunity of a lifetime. The Blair government is failing on every front. Like a victim of Ebola fever, the vital organs of government are ceasing to function. It can tax and it can spend — but it is unable to deliver. There is a deep longing for something better, but it has to be a lot better than what is on offer today."

Another Thatcherite Lord Bell is also unhappy with David Cameron. The London Evening Standard quotes Mrs Thatcher's advertising guru as saying: "David Cameron has convinced the public that he is different to their normal expectation of a Tory leader, brilliantly done... [But] he has not changed the Conservative Party, the party is exactly the same as it was." The Standard goes on to suggest that Labour is planning a summer offensive against David Cameron. ConservativeHome spotlighted the likely contours of that campaign earlier today.

7.30pm update: An edited version of this letter from John Hayes MP will appear in tomorrow's Times:

"Dear Sir,

David Cameron has made enormous strides since becoming Conservative Leader. He has rightly focused our Party’s sights on long neglected issues like the quality of life, better protection of children through strong families, social justice and the environment. We must ensure that our campaigning strengths match our Leader’s clear vision about these imperatives. For Cornerstone, David Burrowes MP – who achieved the biggest Conservative swing in the 2005 election – has identified, from a study of 70 seats, the core components of electoral success. In an age when tribal Party allegiance is waning, he argues that local credibility; effectively articulated strong traditional values and well-honed campaigning skills are vital strengths for our candidates.

Contrary to your report (May 30) none of this is incompatible with the need to tap the talents of more women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. That’s why the principle of a priority candidate list is right – in fact many Cornerstone members helped to build it. So I deeply regret the misinterpretation of my remarks when launching the pamphlet, which were certainly not intended as a criticism of David Cameron or his policy of attracting a wider or more representative cadre of candidates.

As the A-list continues to grow, it will draw in talent from a steadily expanding range of backgrounds, both professional (including, for example, from the public and voluntary sector) and geographical – helping to ensure that Tory candidates are not only of the highest quality, but also reflect the diversity of the country we aspire to govern.

As David Burrowes argues, all of this must be built on sure commitment and sound campaigning skills.

Change is never easy; it is an evolutionary process to which we should all give our best ideas and best endeavours. Cornerstone will continue to contribute positively because, above all, we want David Cameron to be Britain’s next Prime Minister.

John Hayes MP"

***

Guido thinks that the Cornerstone Group (which desperately needs a new website) is crumbling after the controversy provoked by Tuesday's publication of 'Pick 'Em Local' and more particularly because of John Hayes' chichi remarks. The libertarian Guido will be disappointed to learn that the socially conservative Cornerstone Group is in fact holding steady. ConservativeHome has been emailed the definitive list of 35 public supporters/ members...

David Amess

Brian Binley

Peter Bone

Julian Brazier

David Burrowes

Douglas Carswell

Bill Cash

Christopher Chope

Stephen Crabb

David TC Davies

Philip Davies

Christopher Fraser

Robert Goodwill

Greg Hands

Mark Harper

John Hayes

Philip Hollobone

Gerald Howarth

David Jones

Daniel Kawczynski

Edward Leigh

Ian Liddell-Grainger

David Mundell

Owen Paterson

John Redwood

Laurence Robertson

Andrew Rosindell

Lee Scott

Andrew Selous

Bob Spink

Graham Stuart

Desmond Swayne

Andrew Turner

Charles Walker

Angela Watkinson

Three other MPs are effectively supporters but for various reasons have asked not to be publicly identified as such. ConservativeHome has verified the accuracy of this claim.

Snippets of Dr Liam Fox's Sunday interview with GMTV are picked up in a number of newspapers this morning and Iain Dale has a full transcript. Dr Fox appears to be calling for David Cameron to offer a broader conservatism - emphasing coreandbreadth policy issues:

"We avoid external coalitions in our politics by maintaining an internal coalition, and the Conservative party has long been a broad coalition and if the party is tilted too much in any one direction that makes us politically less stable and that makes us less attractive for the voters... I think that we do have to deal with some of the issues that we haven’t dealt with in the past. On things like the environment. As you know I’m very keen on issues like mental health and domestic violence... We do have to have that social agenda which I think has been missing, alongside the traditional Conservative policies of wealth creation and of national security and of being tough of crime and so on. And it's getting the balance right over the next few months that I think we need to do and I think that it is quite preposterous that people expect us to come out with detailed policy now. What I think is reasonable is for people to expect us to set out the intellectual architecture upon which our policy will be based and I think increasingly that is beginning to come forward."

Interviewer Steve Richards then asked the Shadow Defence Secretary if David Cameron was getting the balance wrong at the moment:

"No, I think that this is a project that is still evolving and I think that David Cameron has made a very good start in that he set himself, as a politician in a mould that is of clearly very attractive to a lot of voters. He’s more popular now then the party is. The question now is can we repeat that exercise in showing to the electorate that the Conservative party is a broad coalition which deals with all those issues that the public is concerned about, on crime and discipline and so on, but that it is also able to bring into it this element of social agenda which I think has been missing."

Some will question the wisdom of Dr Fox making these remarks so close to Thursday's local elections but he has only said yesterday what he said repeatedly last year. Dr Fox understands that 'the traditionalist right' of the party are anxious about David Cameron's relative neglect of issues like crime and national security. He is giving David Cameron good advice. It is exactly the same advice contained in ConservativeHome's And Theory of Conservatism. Dr Fox is not asking David Cameron to abandon his emphasis on green issues and on social justice. He - like ConservativeHome - applauds David Cameron for embracing those issues. What mustn't continue to happen, however, is that the party doesn't talk about the issues that are worrying the striving classes. I think, particularly, of crime, immigration, national security, the tax burden and public service failure.

Yesterday we reported Menzies Campbell's new attack on the Tories. In a bid to damn us he said that we are "still right-wing and unpleasant". He didn't say that we were nasty and unpleasant or selfish and unpleasant or racist and unpleasant... the LibDem leader chose "right-wing" as a catch-all term of abuse.

Ming is not the only one who appears to understand that the right-wing label is a pejorative one. On last night's Any Questions? (for which Eddie Mair made an excellent stand-in chair(man)) Steve Norris said that, on civil liberties and the environment, Tony Blair was far to the right of him - again as if being 'to the right' was somehow unpleasant. David Cameron recently made it clear that he didn't like the expression very much:

"Some say that we should move to the right. I say that will turn us into a fringe party, never able to challenge for government again. I don't want to let that happen to this party - do you?"

On a recent blog for the Social Affairs Unit, Harry Phibbs wonders if the term 'right wing' is beyond rescue:

"Describing such ideas as supporting parliamentary sovereignty, or the rule of law, or greater individual freedom, or a smaller state, as right wing tends to put people off. Of course Tory policy is up for review so at the moment the changes are about tone and emphasis. We have had this presented as a change of policy. But it is not. The Conservatives were never in favour of poverty or pollution. But if people thought that they were and no longer believe them to be than that is an advance. If part of that process is resisting the description "right wing" then why not?"

The whole right-left thing is increasingly out-of-date when today's issues
of centralism versus localism, social conservatism versus liberalism
and pre-emption versus multilateralism are causing serious divisions
within political parties. Nonetheless, given that Tory MPs are seen as ten times more right-wing than Tony Blair, the unattractiveness of the right-wing label could be something of a problem.

Robert Goodwill, MP for Scarborough & Whitby and a former deputy Conservative Leader in the European Parliament, has urged David Cameron to "forge ahead quickly" with his promise to take Tory MEPs out of the federalist European Peoples' Party. Mr Goodwill uses a pamphlet for the Cornerstone Group of socially conservative MPs to urge the Tory leader to resist “tired and threadbare” claims that EPP withdrawal will undermine Conservative influence in Europe:

“David Cameron’s wise decision to leave the EPP would not only provide Conservatives with more resources, independent control over their finances, a seat at the Conference of Presidents and a seat in the front row of Parliament, it will also enable Conservatives better to represent British beliefs and protect British interests."

John Hayes MP, Cornerstone chairman, has issued a statement saying that David Cameron would have the full backing of the group if he moved soon to leave the EPP. An impeccable source close to David Cameron has assured ConservativeHome that he will deliver on his EPP pledge but the timing remains unclear. Mrs Jackson and one or two other MEPs are not expected to leave the EPP when Mr Cameron forms a new grouping, however.

Mr Goodwill's pamphlet will soon be posted in full on the Cornerstone website. In the meantime a summary pdf can be accessed here. Cornerstone's previous paper - by Julian Brazier on higher education - is reviewed here.

The Daily Telegraph may still be broadsheet-sized but it is in danger of following other newspapers down the low road to tabloid sensationalism. Today's Telegraph reports the following:

"David Davis, the shadow home secretary, issues a warning to David Cameron today that he will quit his shadow cabinet if the new Tory leader takes the Conservatives to the Left."

That is a terrible distortion of what David Davis actually said in an interview with The Spectator's Fraser Nelson. Mr Davis actually said that David Cameron's strategy "is not a swerve to the Left. I would not be in the shadow Cabinet, I would not be doing this, if it was." Read The Telegraph and you'd think David Davis was issuing a threat. Read Fraser Nelson's actual interview and you read David Davis affirming the Tory leader.

The interview portrays a figure who is combining loyalty to his principles with loyalty to David Cameron and that combination has won him an 80% net satisfaction rating in the ConservativeHome Members' Panel. Mr Davis is understood to believe that his job is to represent The Tory Right to Mr Cameron and Mr Cameron to The Tory Right. Despite nervousness amongst the Tory Right about tax, Mr Davis is relaxed:

"Everyone knows I’m a low-tax Tory, and I would not be in the shadow Cabinet if I didn’t think a Cameron government with George Osborne in the Treasury would not mean, in the medium to long term, a lower-tax society."

Fraser Nelson's interview reveals that David Davis is influencing the man who beat him to the Tory crown. We already knew that Mr Davis only stayed in post when David Cameron agreed to let him keep the tough, Howard-era line on cannabis. From the Nelson interview we now also know that he has reassured the Tory leader on opposing ID cards and ensured that 'Built To Last' talked about tackling poverty rather than inequality.

Julian Brazier MP, writing for the socially conservative Cornerstone Group of Tory MPs, believes that more of the money spent on higher education should be targeted on halting the "pitiful collapse" in maths teaching in schools and the closures of university engineering, physics and chemistry departments.

Mr Brazier, who is also a frontbench defence spokesman, believes that the Government's strategy of getting 50% of young people into universities is fundamentally flawed and more students should be put through vocational courses. He contends that most arts students will be worse off as a result of pursuing a university education. He notes that 34% of recent university entrants fail to complete their courses, fail to get a job or fail to get a job that requires a degree. Mr Brazier writes:

"This seems a poor return to the taxpayer. It also seems a very poor return to the students who fall into that bottom third. Many will have run up large debts, and with top-up fees, more will do so."

Mr Brazier's paper (a PDF of which is available here) is the latest in a continuing series of papers by the Cornerstone Group. Edward Leigh has written in favour of school choice and Owen Paterson has written about Labour's reorganisation of police forces. A Cornerstone pamphlet from last September advocated a flat tax, repeal of the Human Rights Act, tax breaks for marriage and directly elected police sheriffs.

The Observer reports that an unnamed industrialist has cancelled a £250,000 pledge to the Tory party over concern at "downgrading of the party's commitment to reduce taxes and the abandonment of long-held Tory positions, including support of business." It also notes that Robin Harris, former Thatcher speechwriter, will use an article for Prospect magazine to tell Mr Cameron that he "should be having sleepless nights about what he is doing to bedrock Conservative support in the country."

Amid signs of this right-wing discontent the Tory leadership has attempted to shore up core support with renewal of its commitment to a "rapid" free vote on reversing the Hunting Act. One "Tory insider" told The Sunday Telegraph:

"The bottom line for traditionalists is hunting and Europe. So long as Cameron stays sound on those two issues, Right-wingers will follow him anywhere and swallow pretty much every other U-turn he makes."

I don't believe that the Tory insider quite understands the modern Conservative Party but there is little doubt that the hunting lobby is a powerful member of the Tory coalition. The Telegraph article notes that it can marshall 8,000 volunteer campaigners to help the activist-poor Tory party get out its leaflets. Hunting enthusiasts were certainly actively involved in the successful Tory campaigns in Enfield Southgate, Guildford and Newbury at the last election.

What the pledge does show, however, is that David Cameron is determined not to pursue outright confrontation with the right of the 'blood-on-the-carpet' variety recommended by Michael Portillo. This pledge, coming on top of his (albeit difficult) dinner with the No Turning Back group, indicates Mr Cameron's first serious attempts to reassure the increasingly anxious right.

David Cameron received a grilling from the right-of-centre No Turning Back Group last night. A dozen of the party's more Thatcherite MPs expressed serious concern at the Tory leadership's repositioning on tax and grammar schools.

David Davis and John Redwood were at the meeting and offered their own support to Mr Cameron but the overall mood of the meeting was "deeply antagonistic" according to my source.

Unlike the socially conservative Cornerstone group of Tory MPs - which is very committed to the new leader's social justice agenda - the NTB is widely regarded as unreconstructed keepers of the Thatcherite flame and are unenthusiastic about any rebalancing of the core messages.

Lord Ashcroft, who now has responsibility at CCHQ for polling, addressed a full meeting of the parliamentary party this morning. He was unable to report any seismic improvement in the Tory brand - the problems of which he identified in his Smell the Coffee General Election report. He was able to show that target voters were more receptive to at least listening to Conservative spokespeople, however.

This hasn't been a good week for the Cameron project. Although Thursday's by-election was a disappointment the more worrying thing was PMQs on Wednesday. Tony Blair's attack on David Cameron as lacking political identity worked because it appeared true enough to a lot of people. Since he became leader David Cameron has ditched many traditional Tory policies on...

Another policy was ditched again this week when George Osborne appeared to abandon the Tory commitment to prioritise protection of the greenbelt. Justifications can be offered for each individual policy change but taken as a whole the changes have made Cameron's Conservatives vulnerable to the accusation that they are more politically ambitious than they are principled.

This wouldn't have happened if we had pursued "the politics of and" - blending core policies with new policies. Our aim should have been to have appeared (and been) faithful to our core beliefs on immigration, Europe and crime (which are all very popular, after all) - but also ambitious to conquer new political territory. I don't argue that we should have kept all old policies within this formulation. I'm particularly glad that we've dumped the cap on asylum seekers, for example, but too many voters are getting the impression that the Conservative Party is becoming a bit Blairite. This is happening at a time when voters probably want more authenticity from their politicians.

Some of David Cameron's changes to the Conservative Party have appeared much more authentic than others. His embrace of a more compassionate conservatism has been particularly impressive, for example. It's been impressive because it has been consistent with authentic conservatism. His recent speech to the CSJ was itself a model of the 'and' theory. There was the very familar conservative emphasis on succeeding at school, stable family life, hard work and freedom from addiction. But there was also the commitment to build the nation of the second chance where no-one is ever written off but where voluntary, faith-based and other government-empowered groups help people to get back on to their feet.

In today's Telegraph Charles Moore welcomed David Cameron's compassionate conservatism. In it he finds authentic passion and authentic method:

"This is that it is central to the belief system of the conservative-minded person (especially if he is a Christian) to want to relieve poverty wherever he can. Such a person has a powerful sense of the obligation of each human being to another, especially of the strong to the weak. Unlike someone on the Left, he will not think that obligation discharged by government alone."

David Cameron should press on with his commitment to change the Conservative Party but a little more rootedness in conservative methods and a little less downgrading of popular core policies would be welcome.

Following yesterday's post on Sinn Fein and the parliamentary oath this piece in the Irish Times has been brought to my attention. It is written by Frank Millar, the newspaper's London Editor:

"The Conservative Party’s Northern Ireland spokesman has said the Westminster parliament might need to consider offering elected republican MPs – whether Irish or otherwise – an alternative to the traditional oath swearing allegiance to the British monarch.

However, David Lidington last night stressed his clear understanding that such a development would have no bearing on the position of Sinn Féin MPs.

And he made clear that any change would have to take place in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole, and could only come about – if at all – following extensive cross-party consultations at Westminster.

Mr Lidington clarified his position following an interview on BBC Radio Foyle in which he was asked what his attitude would be if Sinn Féin dropped its abstentionist policy, so leaving the oath the only obstacle to the party’s MPs taking their seats in the House of Commons.

Having frequently questioned Sinn Féin members about precisely this issue, Mr Lidington said he understood that scrapping or amending the oath would make no difference because Sinn Féin objected to the exercise of British jurisdiction in Northern Ireland and were therefore abstentionists in principle.

When pressed for his view on the oath in the event of Sinn Féin dropping the policy of abstentionism, as it had done for both the Dáil and Stormont, Mr Lidington said that the issue should then be re-examined and suggested an additional alternative form of words might be found for republicans wishing to take their seats but unable to swear the oath.

The issue of the oath, and possible variations offered to MPs, may now be referred to the Democracy Task Force, established by Conservative leader David Cameron earlier this week."